"Nothing shall be added unto this book"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm curious, does the church have an official view on the JST?

To be honest I don't know.

I am not aware of any quotes from JS claiming that he was trying to restore the original word for word translations from the original text. Some one else might have more information on it.

OTOH, I really wouldn't argue if it is shown that the JST is to be regarded as a word for word translation of the original text.

I hold them sacred as any other scripture and I beleive them.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

I have been making this same argument for about 25 years. Yes, I would agree that the argument you describe is fallacious; Revelation 22:18-19 is referring specifically to the Book of Revelation and is not addressing the question of whether the canon of Scripture is open or closed. On the other hand, it enunciates a principle that goes beyond that one book, which is that no one may alter God's word in Scripture. Again, I have been saying this for many, many years. My intent is not to "distract attention" from the fallacious argument that I didn't use but to present a sound argument that I do use.

Great, I'm glad that's been clarified. So you agree with us about the fallaciousness of the original argument, but you want to pose an alternative that you feel is stronger.

Anyway, two questions arise from your first claim:

1- Do you have any scriptural evidence that John's "principle" applies to other books? Or is this merely an assertion on your part?

2- If your claim is correct, what do you make of the fact that Matthew and Luke changed Mark's text as they developed their own Gospels? Is the prophetic authority of Matthew and Luke likewise to be rejected? Or do you give special dispensation to prophets you happen to believe in?

Bill

[Zakuska]

There are 2 logical extensions of you wish to go down this road.

One is that, you are saying that God cannot add or take away from His word? Were did you get taht idea from. Are you limiting God? So far I cannot find a single bible verse that tells me that Gods word is complete and there shall be no more.

Two is that if you do limit God, are you ready to accpet that you are equating Him to a man? As the text says "If any man add to these words".

I maintain that God can add to His word as I have not heard on thing from the bible that claims that He can't or wont becuase the bible is finished.

If God can add to His word, how do you suppose that He would do that? How did He do that in the past.

Tell me, How did the Children of Israel know that Moses was a true prophet?

How do you deal with similar wording that is found in Deuteronomy?

FWIW, I don't expect you to agree with me. I am sure you will find some way to disagree with every one of my points. What I am looking for is a biblical reason to do so, not just your assertions.

One versecomes to mind...

"The Lord Giveth and he taketh away"

[ebeddoulos]

There is a big difference between offering a comment on a text and rewriting it. Saying "this is what I understand this verse to mean" is not "messing with the Bible." Rewriting it to say what you think it should have said is "messing with the Bible."

And as to whether "others get a free pass for messing with the Bible, while Joseph does not": No. Anyone else who tried to rewrite the Bible to fit his evolving theology would come under the same criticism as Joseph Smith.

Would they? The same? By you personally? Just out of curiosity, do you criticise the ancient Orthodox and their changes to the New Testament to say what they thought it should have said in the same manner as you criticise the Prophet Joseph Smith and the JST? For example, what is your stand on the deliberate doctrinal change in Luke 2:33?

[Zakuska]

Bill,

I have been making this same argument for about 25 years. Yes, I would agree that the argument you describe is fallacious; Revelation 22:18-19 is referring specifically to the Book of Revelation and is not addressing the question of whether the canon of Scripture is open or closed. On the other hand, it enunciates a principle that goes beyond that one book, which is that no one may alter God's word in Scripture. Again, I have been saying this for many, many years. My intent is not to "distract attention" from the fallacious argument that I didn't use but to present a sound argument that I do use.

If this principle is true then why do you give New Testament Authors a free pass when they quote OT scripture so loosely that it becomes nearly undistiguishable as OT scripture?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Beowulf,

There is a big difference between offering a comment on a text and rewriting it. Saying "this is what I understand this verse to mean" is not "messing with the Bible." Rewriting it to say what you think it should have said is "messing with the Bible."

And as to whether "others get a free pass for messing with the Bible, while Joseph does not": No. Anyone else who tried to rewrite the Bible to fit his evolving theology would come under the same criticism as Joseph Smith. But let's put things in context. Luther and Wesley offered their own comments on the Bible and did not claim that they were prophets whose interpretations must be followed. Smith rewrote parts of the Bible and issued other alleged scriptures and did claim that he was a prophet whose revelations must be followed. The bigger the claim, the more one must be held accountable. So it would be perfectly consistent to give a "free pass," or at least a lesser criticism, to humble folks who made no pretensions to being something they weren't, while taking a very dim view of a man who claimed to be something really fantastic but who wasn't.

This is my response to your characterization of me as taking "a rigid, fundamentalist view." Make big claims, better deliver. Claim to be the Prophet of the Restoration, expect to have your alleged prophetic revelations scrutinized. Claim to have God, Jesus, angels, apostles, and prophets appearing to you with thunderous new revelations, expect to have those revelations critically assessed. This is a far more reasonable stance than the one that says "I accept my guy as speaking as a wonderful prophet of God except where he gets caught goofing, and then, even if it's in something that's supposed to be scripture, I give him a free pass, because he's only human, y'know."

One other point: If I found that Joseph was remarkably accurate almost all of the time, but there were one or two places where it seemed he made a mistake, I would probably go along with your view. But Joseph made numerous "mistakes" just in the JST, and there are lots of problems in his other revelations. How many times must a prophet blow it before we start thinking he might not be a true prophet of God after all?

All this tells me is that you have an assumption. That assumption is that God does not call prophets any more. I have to ask, were is that stated in the bible? WEre do you get that idea?

What if God did tell JS to do what he claimed?

Please note, that I am not asking for an admission that JS is a true prophet, only that if called by God would you have a problem with God adding to His word?

[Zakuska]

Would they? The same? By you personally? Just out of curiosity, do you criticise the ancient Orthodox and their changes to the New Testament to say what they thought it should have said in the same manner as you criticise the Prophet Joseph Smith and the JST? For example, what is your stand on the deliberate doctrinal change in Luke 2:33?

In the age of the adoptionists, who (God, prophet, apostle, Pope, scribe, other) authorized the change found in Luke 2:33?

Show me how you personally justify/criticise the Orthodox change to Luke 2:33?

Do you criticise any (some, most, all) of the versions of the Bible with this rewrite (and a myriad of other alterations) made specifically to fit the

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

This isn't anyone's fault, but it looks like I'm getting deluged with responses, so I'm not going to be able to do all of them justice. And if I spend too much time in this thread, I won't finish reconstructing my lost response to Dan!

When Dan announced on the Pundit forum that he had invited me, you immediately made a snide remark about betting I wouldn't respond. Your replies to me here also have something of an attitude. You know, I'm a guest here, and I'd like to keep things friendly.

Other have noticed that statements similar to Revelation 22:18-19 can be found in other biblical texts (in Deuteronomy and Proverbs). I infer from the recurrence of such warnings that they are enunciating a general principle that one should not add to or subtract from God's word. So no, this is not "merely an assertion on my part."

Matthew and Luke did not change Mark's text. That is, they did not produce an altered version of the Gospel according to Mark. They produced their own Gospel texts that paralleled much of the material in Mark but differed in the wording of some of that parallel material.

What do you think about the rest of my previous response to you?

Great, I'm glad that's been clarified. So you agree with us about the fallaciousness of the original argument, but you want to pose an alternative that you feel is stronger.

Anyway, two questions arise from your first claim:

1- Do you have any scriptural evidence that John's "principle" applies to other books? Or is this merely an assertion on your part?

2- If your claim is correct, what do you make of the fact that Matthew and Luke changed Mark's text as they developed their own Gospels? Is the prophetic authority of Matthew and Luke likewise to be rejected? Or do you give special dispensation to prophets you happen to believe in?

Bill

[Tsjoeva]

I don't know the whole discussion. It was to much reading for a boy with my English. But about the passage from the book of Rev.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book.

20 He that testifieth these things saith, "Surely I come quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

When I read this.. And I am happy not a theologian.. I know for sure.. Jesus meant in any case the book of Revelation.

But because I believe that Bible the book is that is put together by the Holy Spirit. He decide what is coming into the book and what not. I think it is for the whole Bible. When we see John, he was the last living person, who knew Jesus in person. And it is the book, what in common accept as the book what is written as last book in the time. Yes I know there are different meanings. But I think he was the last living man. So, the Bible ended with this book.

So yes it is a double warning. Nobody has add to this book in the first place the book of Revelation, and in the second at the Bible. Because all the Scriptures are good. The Bible is for me a whole proclamation to Jesus. It start in Gen 1 and end in Rev 22:21.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So yes it is a double warning. Nobody has add to this book in the first place the book of Revelation, and in the second at the Bible. Because all the Scriptures are good. The Bible is for me a whole proclamation to Jesus. It start in Gen 1 and end in Rev 22:21.

Does this include God?

IF so can you please explain to me how you arrived to this conclusion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bill,

This isn't anyone's fault, but it looks like I'm getting deluged with responses, so I'm not going to be able to do all of them justice. And if I spend too much time in this thread, I won't finish reconstructing my lost response to Dan!

Well I hope you stay. I wont be to bummed if you can't answer everyones post. Just as long as you get to mine. J/k. I understand that you are a busy fellow and I look forward to what ever responce you can give. Thanks any way.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob,

In addition to the Synoptic gospels issue, note the relationship between Deuteronomy and the other books of the Pentateuch.

And the relationship between Kings and Chronicles.

These three examples all show that it was common, if not normative, for biblical writers to take scriptural materials and add and subtract text from earlier books.

The Bible itself makes clear that John's "principle" was not normative for all Bible writers.

And then there is the nature of the translation of the Septuagint from the Hebrew Bible, and the fact that NT authors tend to prefer the Septuagint.

The evidence of the Bible itself seriously undermines your claim.

[J Green]

Great response, Bill. Hope things are well in Jerusalem.

[ebeddoulos]

Personally, I like Jeromes complaint that the church was intentionally distributing known corputed texts to less ... shall we say... less lucrative denominations.

Jerome was criticised for correcting corrupted texts all the time.

http://epistolae.ccn...letter/262.html

With all this "Text Editing" that was going on who's to say we even have the original?!

http://www.nndb.com/.../580/000097289/

Thank you for the links. Few sites can keep me engrossed in reading but those did.

As for your question, the answer seems to be that with upwards of 300,000 varients that the Greek Texts will never be 100% restored to the original. Even with thousands of ancient texts in multiple languages, I doubt it will ever be perfect though there are some who say that we are 99% there. The Alands provide a somewhat more conservative opinion:

An encyclopedic treatment of this issue is presented by the team of Kurt and Barbara Aland, who provide statistics as to both the percentage of variant free verses among the seven major editions of the Greek NT, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors). It is helpful to look at these [Alan.TNT, 29-30]:

Book---% of variant-free verses---# of variants per page

Matthew 59.9 / 6.8

Mark 45.1 / 10.3

Luke 57.2 / 6.9

John 51.8 / 8.5

Acts 67.3 / 4.2

Romans 75.5 / 2.9

1 Corinthians 75.7 / 3.5

2 Corinthians 78.1 / 2.8

Galatians 76.5 / 3.3

Ephesians 76.1 / 2.9

Philippians 70.2 / 2.5

Colossians 72.6 / 3.4

1 Thess. 68.5 / 4.1

2 Thess. 72.3 / 3.1

1 Timothy 81.4 / 2.9

2 Timothy 79.5 / 2.8

Titus 71.7 / 2.3

Philemon 76.0 / 5.1

Hebrews 77.2 / 2.9

James 61.6 / 5.6

1 Peter 66.6 / 5.7

2 Peter 52.5 / 6.5

1 John 72.4 / 2.8

2 John 61.5 / 4.5

3 John 73.3 / 3.2

Jude 72.0 / 4.2

Revelation 52.8 / 5.1

Total 62.9 equals 4999/7947 verses

The agreement here is quite astonishing, considering that this is the combined result of seven different teams and/or persons over an extended period of time. That all 7 editions completely agree on close to two-thirds of the NT is a striking indication of how much confidence we may have in our present text. (Though not given, the next statistics would show agreements on 6 out of 7, 5 out of 7, etc. - and if the trend above is followed, we might well reach that 99% agreement before going too far down the ladder.)

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

I personnally think that is an overly optimistic opinion. Fortunately, we latter-day Saints have living prophets and additional scripture to make up the difference.

[RoseMadder]

Hope things are well in Jerusalem.

Should things not be well in Jerusalem, perchance

will save the day?

(I quite like the new avatar, J Green.)

[J Green]

perchance

will save the day?

Cheers, RoseMadder.

I always feel like I'm one step behind the dog. Any dog. But Snowy is pretty good.

[volgadon]

J Green, you are awesome!!!

Love Tintin and Snowy!

Love Asterix and Obelix too.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

This isn't anyone's fault, but it looks like I'm getting deluged with responses, so I'm not going to be able to do all of them justice. And if I spend too much time in this thread, I won't finish reconstructing my lost response to Dan!

I didn't ask you to comment on Rev 22. You made that decision yourself. It would be nice if you were willing to engage serious issues we've raised about your position. I guess you're unwilling to engage them. So be it.

quote name='Rob Bowman' date='18 January 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1263850343' post='1208788920']

Other have noticed that statements similar to Revelation 22:18-19 can be found in other biblical texts (in Deuteronomy and Proverbs). I infer from the recurrence of such warnings that they are enunciating a general principle that one should not add to or subtract from God's word. So no, this is not "merely an assertion on my part."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

J Green, you are awesome!!!

Love Tintin and Snowy!

Love Asterix and Obelix too.

I love Asterix. My wife thinks I am so silly because I always want to watch the 12 tasks.

The mountain of caviar..... And a piece of toast to go with it.. Good stuff.

I fell in to that caldron as a baby.

[J Green]

Hi, Volga and Mola.

I grew up in Egypt, where my choice of comics was mostly limited to Tintin and Asterix. Although Fouad's on Road 9 in Ma'adi sometimes carried old

Archies. Good times.

Regards

[volgadon]

Hi, Volga and Mola.

I grew up in Egypt, where my choice of comics was mostly limited to Tintin and Asterix. Although Fouad's on Road 9 in Ma'adi sometimes carried old

Archies. Good times.

Regards

Oddly enough, I've actually heard of Fouad's.

I'm probably somewhat younger than you are, yet growing up in Israel, the selection wasn't much better! Tintin, Asterix and a rare Archie. Oh and my mom had with her some old Peanuts.

I can't complain, I'm really glad I was exposed to Asterix and Tintin.

[JAHS]

Rev: 18. For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

One rather small point one could make is that the plagues "that are written in this book" are those found in the Book of Revelation.(See Rev. 9:20, 11:6, 15:1, 15:6).

I know there are plagues spoken of in other parts of the Bible, but in my opinion he is refering specifically to those written in his book.

Someone may have already mentioned this but there have been many new translations of the Bible that have been published recently, that have things missing or added compared to the King James translation. Consider, for example in Luke 17:36 of the King James version we read:

"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

And Acts 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou abelievest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." In the New International Version(NIV), the New Living Translation(NLT), and the English Standard Version(ESV), these scriptures have been completely removed.

Another example: In Luke 17:36 of the King James version Jesus mentions some of the ten commandments including, "thou shalt not bear false witness".

But this phrase is missing from the New International Version(NIV), the New Amercian Standard Bible(NASB), the New Living Translation(NLT), and the English Standard Version (ESV).

These are Bibles that are used by the same people who claim we violate the Deut. 4:2 and Rev.22:18-19 scriptures because we have additional scripture. Maybe in their opinions those were corrections that should have been made to the King James version, but whose to say who has the last word on what should be there or not be there? How can anyone perfectly comply to the charge given in Rev 22:18-19, unless of course they are a prophet of God?

[volgadon]

I also find it ironic that these same people follow teachings of a man who wanted to remove Revelation from the Bible.

[Bill Hamblin]

Waiting ... Waiting ...

I'm off tomorrow for a week in Egypt. (HA-ha!) If Rob wants to respond in any way, he should do it soon.

[Tsjoeva]

Does this include God?

IF so can you please explain to me how you arrived to this conclusion.

Well I think it isn't necessary that the Lord add some to the Bible. I believe, He knows when it is finished. Like the New Testament start with the birth of the Lord.

In my opinion, there is nothing written new in the NT. The first Christians got only the OT. And the NT is in my opinion the eye witness report of the complete Bible. All of the writers are people who know Jesus in person.